Models of Attention and Dual-Task Performance as Explanatory Constructs in Aphasia

ABSTRACT

Aphasia has traditionally been viewed as a loss or impairment of language. However, evidence is presented suggesting that language mechanisms are fundamentally preserved and that aphasic language behaviors are instead due to impairments of cognitive processes supporting their construction. These processes may be understood as a linguistically specialized attentional system that is vulnerable to competition from other processing domains. We present two models of attention that focus on competition for central processing and discuss findings from dual-task studies of normal and aphasic performance. First, competing language and nonlanguage tasks appear to share limited-capacity, parallel processing resources. Second, aphasic individuals demonstrate slowed central processing that could be due to a reduction in processing capacity or ability to allocate that capacity. Third, the attention models discussed bear a coherent relationship to current models of language processing. Clinical implications of a cognitive processing account of aphasia are also considered.

KEYWORDS

Aphasia - attention - psychological refractory period

REFERENCES

• 1 Schuell H, Jenkins J J, Jimenez-Pabon E. Aphasia in Adults: Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment. New York, NY; Harper & Row 1964
• 2 Darley F L. Aphasia. Philadelphia, PA; WB Saunders 1982
• 3 McNeil M R, Pratt S R. A standard definition of aphasia: toward a general theory of aphasia.  Aphasiology. 2001;  15 901-911
• 4 Benson D F. Aphasia, Alexia, and Agraphia. New York, NY; Churchill Livingstone 1979
• 5 Saffran E M, Schwartz M F, Marin O SM. Evidence from aphasia: isolating the components of a production model. In: Butterworth B Language Production. London, United Kingdom; Academic Press 1980: 221-240
• 6 Martin N, Dell G S, Saffran E M, Schwartz M F. Origins of paraphasias in deep dysphasia: testing the consequences of a decay impairment to an interactive spreading activation model of lexical retrieval.  Brain Lang. 1994;  47 609-660
• 7 Craven RR, Hirnle CJ Fundamentals of Nursing: Human Health and Function. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2009
• 8 McNeil M R, Hageman C F, Matthews C T. Auditory processing deficits in aphasia evidenced on the Revised Token Test: incidence and prediction of across subtest and across item within subtest patterns.  Aphasiology. 2005;  19 179-198
• 9 Hageman C F, Folkstad A. Performance of aphasic listeners on an expanded revised token test subtest presented verbally and nonverbally.  Clinical Aphasiology. 1986;  16 226-233
• 10 Hageman C F, McNeil M R, Rucci-Zimmer S, Cariski D M. The reliability of patterns of auditory processing deficits: evidence from the Revised Token Test.  Clinical Aphasiology. 1982;  12 230-234
• 11 Peach R K, Rubin S S, Newhoff M. A topographic event-related potential analysis of the attention deficit for auditory processing in aphasia.  Clinical Aphasiology. 1994;  24 81-96
• 12 McNeil M R. Aphasia in the adult. In: Lass NJ, McReynolds LV, Northern J, Yoder DE Handbook of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Toronto, Canada; BC Decker 1988: 738-786
• 13 Milberg W, Blumstein S, Dworetzky B. Phonological processing and lexical access in aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1988;  34 279-293
• 14 Prather P A, Zurif E, Love T, Brownell H. Speed of lexical activation in nonfluent Broca's aphasia and fluent Wernicke's aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1997;  59 391-411
• 15 Martin N, Fink R, Laine M, Ayala J. Immediate and short-term effects of contextual priming on word retrieval in aphasia.  Aphasiology. 2004;  18 867-898
• 16 Haarmann H J, Kolk H HJ. Syntactic priming in Broca's aphasics: evidence for slow activation.  Aphasiology. 1991;  5 247-263
• 17 Baum S R. Phonological, semantic, and mediated priming in aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1997;  60 347-359
• 18 Wilshire C E, Saffran E M. Contrasting effects of phonological priming in aphasic word production.  Cognition. 2005;  95 31-71
• 19 Benton A L, Smith K C, Lang M. Stimulus characteristics and object naming in aphasic patients.  J Commun Disord. 1972;  5 19-24
• 20 Martin P I, Naeser M A, Ho M et al.. Overt naming fMRI pre- and post-TMS: two nonfluent aphasia patients, with and without improved naming post-TMS.  Brain Lang. 2007;  103 248-249
• 21 Naeser M A, Martin P I, Nicholas M et al.. Improved picture naming in chronic aphasia after TMS to part of right Broca's area: an open-protocol study.  Brain Lang. 2005;  93 95-105
• 22 Lomas J, Kertesz A. Patterns of spontaneous recovery in aphasic groups: a study of adult stroke patients.  Brain Lang. 1978;  5 388-401
• 23 Hillis A E, Wityk R J, Barker P B et al.. Subcortical aphasia and neglect in acute stroke: the role of cortical hypoperfusion.  Brain. 2002;  125 1094-1104
• 24 Hillis A E, Wityk R J, Tuffiash E et al.. Hypoperfusion of Wernicke's area predicts severity of semantic deficit in acute stroke.  Ann Neurol. 2001;  50 561-566
• 25 Hamilton N G, Matthews T. Aphasia: the sole manifestation of focal status epilepticus.  Neurology. 1979;  29 745-748
• 26 Linebaugh C W, Coakley A S, Arrigan A F, Racy A. Epileptogenic aphasia.  Clinical Aphasiology. 1979;  9 70-78
• 27 Lecours A R, Joanette Y. Linguistic and other psychological aspects of paroxysmal aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1980;  10 1-23
• 28 Kilborn K. Selective impairment of grammatical morphology due to induced stress in normal listeners: implications for aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1991;  41 275-288
• 29 Dick F, Bates E, Ferstl E C. Spectral and temporal degradation of speech as a simulation of morphosyntactic deficits in English and German.  Brain Lang. 2003;  85 535-542
• 30 Miyake A, Carpenter P A, Just M A. A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: making normal adults perform like aphasic patients.  Cogn Neuropsychol. 1994;  11 671-717
• 31 Blackwell A, Bates E. Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation.  J Cogn Neurosci. 1995;  7 228-257
• 32 Coppens P, Frisinger D. Category-specific naming effect in non-brain-damaged individuals.  Brain Lang. 2005;  94 61-71
• 33 Hodgson C, Lambon Ralph M A. Mimicking aphasic semantic errors in normal speech production: evidence from a novel experimental paradigm.  Brain Lang. 2008;  104 89-101
• 34 Silkes J, McNeil M R, Drton M. Simulation of aphasic naming performance in non-brain-damaged adults.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;  47 610-623
• 35 Buckingham H W. Freud's continuity thesis.  Brain Lang. 1999;  69 76-92
• 36 McNeil M R. Aphasia: neurological considerations.  Top Lang Disord. 1983;  3 1-19
• 37 Kreindler A, Fradis A. Performances in Aphasia: A Neurodynamical Diagnostic and Psychological Study. Paris, France; Gauthier-Villars 1968
• 38 Crisman L G. Response Variability in Naming Behavior of Aphasic Patients. Unpublished master's thesis Pittsburgh, PA; University of Pittsburgh 1971
• 39 Howard D, Patterson K, Franklin S, Morton J, Orchard-Lisle V. Variability and consistency in naming by aphasic patients.  Adv Neurol. 1984;  42 263-276
• 40 Freed D B, Marshall R C, Chulantseff E A. Picture naming variability: a methodological consideration of inconsistent naming responses in fluent and nonfluent aphasia.  Clin Aphasiol. 1996;  26 193-205
• 41 Caplan D, Waters G, Dede G, Michaud J, Reddy A. A study of syntactic processing in aphasia. I: Behavioral (psycholinguistic) aspects.  Brain Lang. 2007;  101 103-150
• 42 Head H. Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1926
• 43 Kolk H. Variability is the hallmark of aphasic behaviour: grammatical behaviour is no exception.  Brain Lang. 2007;  101 99-102
• 44 McNeil M R, Odell K, Tseng C H. Toward the integration of resource allocation into a general theory of aphasia.  Clin Aphasiol. 1991;  21 21-39
• 45 Baddeley A D, Hitch G J. Working memory. In: Bower GH The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York, NY; Academic Press 1974: 47-89
• 46 Caplan D, Waters G S. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension.  Behav Brain Sci. 1999;  22 77-126
• 47 Cowan N. Working Memory Capacity. New York, NY; Psychological Press 2005
• 48 Engle R W, Kane M J. Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In: Ross B The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York, NY; Elsevier 2004: 145-199
• 49 Just M, Carpenter P. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory.  Psychol Rev. 1992;  99 122-149
• 50 Kane M J, Conway A RA, Hambrick D Z, Engle R W. Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In: Conway ARA, Jarrold C, Kane MJ, Miyake A, Towse JN Variation in Working Memory. New York, NY; Oxford University Press 2007: 21-48
• 51 Kane M J, Poole B J, Tuholski S W. Working memory capacity and the top-down control of visual search: exploring the boundaries of “executive attention”.  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006;  32 749-777
• 52 Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall 1973
• 53 Navon D. Resources—a theoretical soup stone?.  Psychol Rev. 1984;  91 216-234
• 54 Pashler H. The Psychology of Attention. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 1998
• 55 Arvedson J C, McNeil M R. Accuracy and response times for semantic judgments and lexical decisions with left and right hemisphere lesions.  ClinAphasiol. 1987;  17 188-200
• 56 Odell K H, McNeil M R. Processing relationships between the comprehension of syntax and lexical-semantics in adult aphasia. Presented at: the Academy of Aphasia November 1–3, 1998 Santa Fe, NM;
• 57 Tseng C H, McNeil M R, Milenkovic P. An investigation of attention allocation deficits in aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1993;  45 276-296
• 58 Slansky B L, McNeil M R. Resource allocation in auditory processing of emphatically stressed stimuli in aphasia.  Aphasiology. 1997;  11 461-472
• 59 LaPointe L L, Erickson R J. Auditory vigilance during divided task attention in aphasic individuals.  Aphasiology. 1991;  5 511-520
• 60 Herath P, Klingberg T, Young J, Amunts K, Roland P. Neural correlates of dual task interference can be dissociated from those of divided attention: an fMRI study.  Cereb Cortex. 2001;  11 796-805
• 61 Pashler H. Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 1984;  10 358-377
• 62 Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory.  Psychol Bull. 1994;  116 220-244
• 63 Navon D, Miller J. Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion.  Cognit Psychol. 2002;  44 193-251
• 64 Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 2003;  29 3-18
• 65 Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. Does size rescaling require central attention?.  Can J Exp Psychol. 2002;  56 10-17
• 66 Reynolds M, Besner D. Reading aloud is not automatic: processing capacity is required to generate a phonological code from print.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 2006;  32 1303-1323
• 67 De Jong R. Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 1993;  19 965-980
• 68 Pashler H, Johnston J C. Chronometric evidence for central postponement temporally overlapping tasks.  Q J Exp Psychol. 1989;  41A 19-45
• 69 Pashler H. Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: evidence of a two component theory of divided attention in simple tasks.  Cognit Psychol. 1989;  21 469-514
• 70 Johnston J C, McCann R S, Remington R W. Chronometric evidence for two types of attention.  Psychol Sci. 1995;  6 365-369
• 71 Fagot C, Pashler H. Making two responses to a single object: implications for the central attentional bottleneck.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 1992;  18 1058-1079
• 72 Carrier L M, Pashler H. Attentional limits in memory retrieval.  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995;  21 1339-1348
• 73 McCann R S, Johnston J C. Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 1992;  18 471-484
• 74 Pashler H. Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: distinct attentional mechanisms.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 1991;  17 1023-1040
• 75 Smith M C. The effect of varying information on the psychological refractory period.  Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;  30 220-231
• 76 Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon.  Psychol Res. 2002;  66 274-286
• 77 Hula W D, McNeil M R. Lexical frequency in dual-task picture naming: evidence for resource sharing. Presented at: the annual convention of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association November 15–17, 2007 Boston, MA;
• 78 Ferreira V S, Pashler H. Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production.  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002;  28 1187-1199
• 79 Van Selst M, Jolicoeur P. Can mental rotation occur before the dual-task bottleneck?.  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994;  20 905-921
• 80 Lawson R, Humphreys G W, Jolicoeur P. The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: one manipulation or two?.  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000;  26 568-581
• 81 Dell'Acqua R, Jolicoeur P. Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference.  Mem Cognit. 2000;  28 184-191
• 82 Jolicoeur P, Dell'Acqua R. The demonstration of short-term consolidation.  Cognit Psychol. 1998;  36 138-202
• 83 Hula W D, McNeil M R. Lexical frequency effects in dual-task picture naming. Presented at: the 2007 Clinical Aphasiology Conference May 22–26, 2007 Scottsdale, AZ;
• 84 McCann R S, Remington R W, Van Selst M. A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 2000;  26 1352-1370
• 85 Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model.  J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 2005;  31 790-802
• 86 Pashler H. Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview.  Q J Exp Psychol A. 1994;  47 161-191
• 87 Dell'Acqua R, Stablum F, Galbiati S, Spannocchi G, Cerri C. Selective effect of closed-head injury on central resource allocation: evidence from dual-task performance.  Exp Brain Res. 2001;  136 364-378
• 88 Dell'Acqua R, Pashler H, Stablum F. Multitasking costs in close-head injury patients. A fine-grained analysis.  Exp Brain Res. 2003;  152 29-41
• 89 Dell'Acqua R, Sessa P, Pashler H. A neuropsychological assessment of dual-task costs in closed-head injury patients using Cohen's effect size estimation method.  Psychol Res. 2006;  70 553-561
• 90 Hula W D, McNeil M R, Sung J E. Is there an impairment of language-specific processing in aphasia?.  Brain Lang. 2007;  103 240-241
• 91 Foygel D, Dell G S. Models of impaired lexical access in speech production.  J Mem Lang. 2000;  43 182-216
• 92 Dell G S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.  Psychol Rev. 1986;  93 283-321
• 93 Levelt W J, Roelofs A, Meyer A S. A theory of lexical access in speech production.  Behav Brain Sci. 1999;  22 1-38
• 94 Schwartz M F, Dell G S, Martin N, Gahl S, Sobel P. A case-series test of the interactive two-step model of lexical access: evidence from picture naming.  J Mem Lang. 2006;  54 228-264
• 95 Cutting J C, Ferreira V S. Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon.  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999;  25 318-344
• 96 Jescheniak J D, Levelt W JM. Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form.  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994;  20 824-843
• 97 Griffin Z M, Bock K. Constraint word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production.  J Mem Lang. 1998;  38 313-338
• 98 Schriefers H, Meyer A S, Levelt W JM. Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: picture-word interference studies.  J Mem Lang. 1990;  29 86-102
• 99 Dell'Acqua R, Job R, Peressotti F, Pascali A. The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect.  Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;  14 717-722
• 100 Sullivan M P, Macchi C. A dual-task study of lemma selection in the picture-word interference task: is competition strategically or automatically minimized?. Presented to the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Association for Interdisciplinary Learning, Hood River, OR 2002

1 Considerable variability has also been demonstrated to occur across language modalities (gesturing, writing, talking, reading, and listening) and across levels of language. However, psycholinguistic operations unique to each processing modality appears to account for a substantial amount of the variability. This source of within-subject variability is not discussed here.

2 Navon and Miller [63] and Tombu and Jolicoeur [64] independently developed models that are mathematically identical. Tombu and Jolicoeur referred to it as a central capacity sharing model. In this article, we adopt Navon and Miller's terminology, single resource.

3 Although it is acknowledged that capacity limits and/or processing bottlenecks may occur in the pre- and postcentral stages under some circumstances, such limits are proposed to be independent of and qualitatively different from the central bottleneck. [54] [67]

4 The predictions that RT1 will be affected by SOA and task 2 difficulty depend on a number of assumptions, including the assumptions that the total available resource capacity is limited and constant, or at least does not vary systematically with SOA or task difficulty. [63] [64] Although these assumptions are arguable, they are helpful in making the models and their predictions tractable, and detailed discussion of them is beyond the scope of this article.

5 Although a manual high/low tone identification task may be subject to verbal encoding, the degree of verbal processing for such a task should be minimal relative to that required for a picture-naming task.